If National wins ...

[777]

The largest group of beneficiarys are the recipients of National Superannuation. National introduced Super. in it’s present form. How many of that group vote National is probably unknown but National has steadfastly refused to alter the scheme in any way despite many saying it is becoming unaffordable.
It is also unfair that it is not means tested or income related. National has the “blue greens “, they also have the “ blue rinse” and their grey or balding husbands, happy to hold their hand out just like all those other lazy good for nothing beneficiarys.

westerly

What an insulting post.

[dobby41]

The largest group of beneficiarys are the recipients of National Superannuation. National introduced Super. in it’s present form. How many of that group vote National is probably unknown but National has steadfastly refused to alter the scheme in any way despite many saying it is becoming unaffordable.
It is also unfair that it is not means tested or income related. National has the “blue greens “, they also have the “ blue rinse” and their grey or balding husbands, happy to hold their hand out just like all those other lazy good for nothing beneficiarys.

westerly

I'll bite!
You sound very bitter.
I certainly agree that National has been poor in not even listening to any change in the age of entitlement. Increase the super age to 67 (or even 70) but leave the Kiwisaver age where it is. So many options avaliable.
Maybe now that Shonkey is gone National might see sense.

When my turn comes to get the National Super (and the gold card) I'll use the money to have a few extra holidays.
Given I pay around $50k tax per year I might get a small bit back.

[fungus pudding]

I'll bite!
You sound very bitter.
I certainly agree that National has been poor in not even listening to any change in the age of entitlement. Increase the super age to 67 (or even 70) but leave the Kiwisaver age where it is. So many options avaliable.
Maybe now that Shonkey is gone National might see sense.

When my turn comes to get the National Super (and the gold card) I'll use the money to have a few extra holidays.
Given I pay around $50k tax per year I might get a small bit back.

65 is plenty old enough to retire from many occupations. Try carpet laying after 30 or 40 years of bending. Raising the age is not a good idea, especially considering those who have worn themselves out from physical labour will have been on low pay scales for most of their working lives.

[blackcap]

The largest group of beneficiarys are the recipients of National Superannuation. National introduced Super. in it’s present form. How many of that group vote National is probably unknown but National has steadfastly refused to alter the scheme in any way despite many saying it is becoming unaffordable.
It is also unfair that it is not means tested or income related. National has the “blue greens “, they also have the “ blue rinse” and their grey or balding husbands, happy to hold their hand out just like all those other lazy good for nothing beneficiarys.

westerly

What a load of tosh that is is not fair that it isn't means tested. Means testing Super would penalise those that have saved and favour those that are not frugal and have lived the high life only to find oops they have nothing at 65. Wrong to incentivise it as such. Also not a benefit, just getting back the tax payments that have gone towards providing the super over the lifetime of work and income tax. My dad just got it and I do not begrudge him one bit even though he is still working on the side and earning about $30k per year with his part time work and has plenty of assets to boot.

[dobby41]

65 is plenty old enough to retire from many occupations. Try carpet laying after 30 or 40 years of bending. Raising the age is not a good idea, especially considering those who have worn themselves out from physical labour will have been on low pay scales for most of their working lives.

True - and someone had options for that also.
But Shonkey closed down all discussion with a 'not while I'm PM'!

[fungus pudding]

True - and someone had options for that also.
But Shonkey closed down all discussion with a 'not while I'm PM'!

What law was passed prohibiting discussion? Key did state that he would not raise the age - good on him, but that did not stifle debate or rule out other options. The present scheme is affordable into the foreseeable future.

[craic]

The current NS is one of the most efficient schemes in the world. In countries where such a scheme is means tested, retirees find dozens of ways around the means test and the successful ones are laughing all the way to the bank while the particular governments involved have to employ an army of public servants to police the system and catch the defaulters. It goes without saying that the cost of this administration comes out of the same budget so little is gained. And the retirees also pay tax- sometimes a lot more than they get from the government.

[westerly]

The word is spelt beneficiaries, and the possessive 'its' does not have an apostrophe. It's is a contraction of it is. Universal superannuation is not a benefit. Everyone still alive at 65 gets it in spite of the fact that many never contribute one red cent to it. Ever stopped to think those who 'don't need it' are getting a mere $225 per week, which in many many cases is a mere fraction of what they pay to the Govt. every week - let alone what they will have paid on their way to becoming self sufficient? Thought not.
Fortunately I move in different circles than you do, and happen to know some beneficiaries. I can assure you the ones I know could hardly be considered lazy or good for nothing. Change your friends.

“ We get it, Labour can't and never will achieve the same or even similar levels of financial support because their supporter base can't possibly ante up enough of a combined share of their government benefits to compete against the filthy rich national supporters. “

Thankyou for the spelling lesson. I will be more careful in future. The post was in response to the snide comment in the above quote that Labour supporters are all beneficiaries.
I am not bitter, in fact I am extremely lucky to receive a generous payment which call it a benefit or an entitlement is closer to $300 than $225.
What seems to be missing from the responses to my post is the realisation that many of the younger generation believe they will not receive the same or any superanuation as at present and are paying for the present recipients through their own taxation. National of course refusing to supplement the Cullen scheme.
While I don’t believe the age of entitlement should be increased It may in fact have to be reduced given the predictions of automation reducing job opportunities. At some stage means testing as in Australia will be introduced.
I am pleased your beneficiary friends are neither lazy or good for nothing, usually National supporters
are quick to call benefit recipients exactly that.

[fungus pudding]

usually National supporters are quick to call benefit recipients exactly that.

That sort of comment is ridiculous. I doubt if you know more than a handful of National supporters. No political party can label its supporters with the same tag or beliefs. You can't either. Open your eyes and your mind.

[elZorro]

That sort of comment is ridiculous. I doubt if you know more than a handful of National supporters. No political party can label its supporters with the same tag or beliefs. You can't either. Open your eyes and your mind.

We all know that in fact, National supporters don't like "dole bludgers" on the whole. They are also likely to be farmers or rurally connected.

Today, the govt made a bit of a statement about clean waterways. Except they moved the goalposts, and just decided that everything's pretty well right, just like it is. Rogues! This has provided a huge policy opening for the Greens and Labour, for the 2017 elections. I think National have misjudged what the average NZer thinks of water quality. Or I hope they have.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...mmable-by-2040